Re: IPCC report warns rapid changes needed to stem climate change

From	benj <benj.fake@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics, talk.politics.guns, alt.checkmate
Subject	Re: IPCC report warns rapid changes needed to stem climate change
Date	2018-10-09 12:00 -0400
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<ppijbi$1kvl$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	<ppfu4t$16s2$2@gioia.aioe.org> <3i9ordpkd33g56da82h66nisi0vsgdmmjn@4ax.com> <pphguj$9bt$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/9/2018 1:41 AM, Scout wrote:
> 
> 
> "Wally W." <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote in message 
> news:3i9ordpkd33g56da82h66nisi0vsgdmmjn@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:46:37 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>
>>> Planet has only until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate change, experts
>>> warn:
>>>
>>> https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-report-wxc/index.html 
>>>
>>
>> Maybe you missed this:
>> <http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-temperature-data-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/> 
>>
>> In some cases boats on dry land seemingly recorded ocean temperatures
>> from as far as 100km inland The only explanation that could make sense
>> is that Fahrenheit temperatures were mistaken for Celsius, and for the
>> next seventy years at the CRU no one noticed.
> 
> Here's one of my favorite parts.
> 
> "In probably the worst systematic error, the past is rewritten in an 
> attempt to correct for site moves. While some corrections are necessary, 
> these adjustments are brutally sweeping. Thermometers do need to move, 
> but corrections don't have to treat old sites as if they were always 
> surrounded by concrete and bricks.
> 
> New original sites are usually placed in good open sites. As the site 
> "ages" buildings and roads appear nearby, and sometimes air 
> conditioners, all artificially warming the site. So a replacement 
> thermometer is opened in an open location nearby. Usually each separate 
> national meteorology centre compares both sites for a while and figures 
> out the temperature difference between them. Then they adjust the 
> readings from the old locations down to match the new ones. The problem 
> is that the algorithms also slice right back through the decades cooling 
> all the older original readings - even readings that were probably taken 
> when the site was just a paddock.  In this way the historic past is 
> rewritten to be colder than it really was, making recent warming look 
> faster than it really was. Thousands of men and women trudged through 
> snow, rain and mud to take temperatures that a computer "corrected" a 
> century later."
> 
> 
> Further let's not forget the recent episode where a major amount of the 
> raw data was thrown away in the trash because the "normalized data" 
> (also known as manipulated data) is all that's needed anymore.
> 
> So if something like this were to occur to the 'normalized data' it 
> would invalidate everything collected and would be IMPOSSIBLE to recover 
> from because we now long have the manipulated data to refer back to.
> 
> Then we have cases in which climate organizations manipulate the data in 
> order to maintain this hoax, and it's not the first time that it's been 
> done or even been exposed being done by the same organization.

It's bad enough that political organizations (Like IPCC) have been 
spinning yarns but you also have official government organizations 
manipulating data for years. Not only have low-reading stations been 
closed, and a construction creating Urban heat islands ignored but 
Actual historical GISS has been slowly "adjusted" without explanation.
This is pure fraud. Probably a result of people using their OWN GISS 
data to show climate change assertions are completely incompatible with 
their OWN historical temperature data. (Like say from 1940-1970 when CO2 
went UP and Temperature went DOWN)

The climate scam is a HUGE black eye on science.

Thread

csiph-web